If the Government is intercepting private communications without a warrant, it is violating the Constitution. The operative word is not "targeted," it's "intercepted."

Saying the intercepts are not read unless they match some programmed criteria does not alter the fact that the intercepts took place, the results are stored in Government files, and are available to the Government to use as it sees fit with no oversight.

If the Government decided to mine intercept data bases for blackmail-worthy material, it could gain a hold over many citizens, some of them prominent. It's an awful lot of power to put into the hands of public officials, elected or not.

I have very queasy feelings about the FISA court, too. Nothing the court does is transparent to citizens. Secret courts are not a healthy thing in a democracy. I can understand "hot pursuit" secrecy, but after six months, a year, why can't we see what they've been approving?

As for CIA kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, torture, and indefinite imprisonment without charges, and signing statements altering laws passed by Congress, the only possible way any of these activities can be considered constitutional is to pack the Supreme Court with partisan revisionists.

The simple truth is that none of these illegal activities is likely to net any terrorists. The dangerous ones are savvy to our technological tricks and are not vulnerable to them. The Administration surely knows this. So who is the real target of all of this surveillance?

"So who is the real target of all of this surveillance?"

Let me give you a hint - it's not you! Remember that line in the article about scratching a paranoid and finding a narcissist - well I think we can see what you have under your skin, narcissist.

Your post outlines precisely why conspiracy theorists sound so utterly looney to the rest of the society they live in. At the foremost you demonstrate that you somehow have the "in" on what's REALLY happening here and your knowledge will free us all.

Go back to the origins of the NSA and describe the bulk of their work. I start you in the right direction, it isn't nabbing self-important drug soaked hippies and angry black activists.

Eigenvector,

It is you that sound looney to me. Those neocons have demonstrated that they'll use any trick in the book to rig the game. Grab a glove and get in the game.

Eigenvector:

"So who is the real target of all of this surveillance?"

I have no idea. Do you know?

Let me give you a hint - it's not you! Remember that line in the article about scratching a paranoid and finding a narcissist - well I think we can see what you have under your skin, narcissist.

Your post outlines precisely why conspiracy theorists sound so utterly looney to the rest of the society they live in. At the foremost you demonstrate that you somehow have the "in" on what's REALLY happening here and your knowledge will free us all.

I have no argument with your assessment of conspiracy theorists. That the NSA is involved in mass communications intercept activity is hardly a paranoid belief.

Go back to the origins of the NSA and describe the bulk of their work. I start you in the right direction, it isn't nabbing self-important drug soaked hippies and angry black activists.

Of course our intelligence agencies were developed for the sole purpose of providing security for our nation in a time of war. Creating the intelligence agencies was a significant deviation from our nation's previous position, outlined in the constitution, forbidding even the creation of a standing army. We made a determination that the risk justified the change in policy. After all, our enemies were spying on us.

Having these agencies does present a risk to our individual freedom. If we aren't vigilant in maintaining civilian control of these agencies, they can be abused.

I wonder why you chose the two examples of hippies and black activists? Could it be due to the fact that you have knowledge of these particular groups being subjects of abuse by intelligence agencies in our past? What if it should be determined at some later date that persons with certain mathematic or engineering knowledge have become a danger to society. Will anyone care if they come after you? Or will we all say that it's necessary in order to guarantee our security?

when it DOES become about drug-soaked hippies and black activists, how do we put the genie back in the bottle?

This may not be about anything other than terrorism right now (though I find that a naive view), but how long will it take before some enterprising young Congressman decides that these tools ought to be used to fight all of our domestic problems as well?

Given our government's history, I don't think this is a paranoid exaggeration at all. I'm not pretending I have any inside knowledge that you don't, I'm just using simple deductive reasoning.

Eigenvector:

"So who is the real target of all of this surveillance?"

Let me give you a hint - it's not you! Remember that line in the article about scratching a paranoid and finding a narcissist - well I think we can see what you have under your skin, narcissist.

Your post outlines precisely why conspiracy theorists sound so utterly looney to the rest of the society they live in. At the foremost you demonstrate that you somehow have the "in" on what's REALLY happening here and your knowledge will free us all.

Go back to the origins of the NSA and describe the bulk of their work. I start you in the right direction, it isn't nabbing self-important drug soaked hippies and angry black activists.

Well, I have little reason to suspect that ANYONE would have any interest in eavesdropping on any of my conversations, but our government has a long history of misusing private data to further a political agenda.

Strong rumors suggest that J Edgar Hoover had secret files on hundreds if not thousands of politicians and used the threat of blackmail to further his own political agenda. Certainly, he used private information on individuals such as Dr Martin Luther King in an attempt to discredit him.

And of course there is Richard Nixon, whose abuse of power was the immediate cause of the legislation that Bush is accused of contravening.

You may be convinced that GWB's administration would not stoop to using private information for political purposes, but I do not share that confidence, and in any case, have no confidence that some future administration would do so.

That does not even address the risk that some middle-level lackey might sell access.

The price of freedom is vigilance.Thomas jefferson said that and he had good reason to .he knew there would be those who would use the power of goverment to push an un democratic(un-american)agenda. Then there are those who would be ok with this crap(your kind maybe?)These are the enemies domestic he had in mind when he wrote "ENEMIES FORIEN AND DOMESTIC"In the constitution.But i guess there are people in this country that to whom the constitution is an impediment to what kind of policies they want to be in place in this country.To bad those types are not seeing the point.The laws are there to stop your kind of beliefs from destroying the best country on this planet.Your just to ignorant to see the danger of you agenda.How sad ,and frieghting.!

Thomas Paine:

I agree with your point completely but do have a thought and a question for you.

The Bush admin. doesn't have much time left to snoop on anyone much less mount a campaign against a non-terrorist entity with inf. gained by a wiretap, etc. So my guess is the next admin. will be the one with any real teeth with which to bite. I further guess that the next admin. will be a Hillary Clinton one and the idea of wiretapping,etc. will look equally prudent to her people as well.

Question: Will you join me in condemning any Dem. admin. that uses, or suggests using , wiretaps? Or will it be satisfactory to you to just hear Hillary say that her admin. is being responsible and stopping terrorists? It is simply my belief that many who are criticizing this are doing so because they don't like Bush.

keef2333:

Question: Will you join me in condemning any Dem. admin. that uses, or suggests using , wiretaps? Or will it be satisfactory to you to just hear Hillary say that her admin. is being responsible and stopping terrorists? It is simply my belief that many who are criticizing this are doing so because they don't like Bush.

Here's my take: I'll support any administration that works within the law. I don't believe that the Bush administration has done that. Of course, it's nearly impossible to prove it at this time.

Congress just changed the law to legalize what Bush had been doing all along. Okay, fine. We can debate whether or not the changes in the law were good for the country. But legislating is Congress' function. The executive is not an uber-dictator who can pick and choose what laws he or she wants to follow. They have to follow the law as written.

And I'll go on record now that if a Hillary administration ignores laws passed by Congress, I'll condemn it as well.

maybe it's the guy who runs the corner grocery, or the dude who drives me to work, or the woman in the next cubical. Wrong is wrong.

And I disagree with your last paragraph. A quick look at our prison population, our South American foreign policy, and our previous war on an abstract concept suggests that drug soaking or blackness is a damn likely target of our security apparatus.

It's already well documented that the military has engaged in surveillance of Quakers and other peace groups on the theory that these were a menace to national security.

<link>

Couldn't "national security" justify spying on political candidates who advocate policies different from the President's and therefore (in his or her opinion) damaging to national security? Isn't that exactly what Nixon did?

Question: Will you join me in condemning any Dem. admin. that uses, or suggests using , wiretaps? Or will it be satisfactory to you to just hear Hillary say that her admin. is being responsible and stopping terrorists?

Absolutely! I am no more OK with Hillary or any other Democrat having unrestricted wiretap authority than I am Bush or Cheney doing so.

I also am not totally against use of wiretaps for legitimate national security or criminal investigation matters, provided the appropriate safeguards are in place to provide reasonable protection from abuse.

Unfortunately, there is a history, across all political spectra, of leaders concluding that anything contrary to their own particular political vision is by definition, a potential threat to national security.

Consider the existence of Echelon and Carnivore. Not only does the government have the power/ ability, they've been doing so at some level for a generation. Political bickering is just for points and taunts. My guys better then yours. By the way politicians and intercepts ? Think of Hilary listening to a Gingrich phone conversation with a smile on her face. That's ok cause she's "My guy". A lot of this is whose ox is gored.

To divide is to conquer

to create fear amongst society

is ONLY to control

The remains of Joseph Coluzzi were not returned to his wife another interception of individual rights when he was reported missing from The Merchant Vessel Lopez in 1998. Interception has more than one meaning, information relevant to his death might have caused discomfort amont the Board of Directors of AMSEA or military officers. Interception is not always in the interest of Protecting America. Interception provides criminals whether they are government employees or elected officials or large corporations the opportunity to conceal information as well as tamper with illegally gathered information developed on the basis of corrupted information concerning an individual.